"Tristan Seligmann" wrote
> If you introduce the concept of a labeled revision that is limited to a
> particular subtree, then I see no major difference between a copy named
> '/tags/releases/1.0.0' and a "label" named '1.0.0 release'.
The problem with a tag is that you cannot see by looking at the trunk, where
the tag was taken from. If you do a log of a file in the trunk, you can't
relate the revisions of that file directly to tag points. You have to go
browse the tags folder, note the revisions, then relate that back to the
revision numbers shown in the file's log. It's not hard, but its one of
those things that I pay my computer to do for me.
> Of course, if you're proposing to do away with /tags, /branches, etc.
> entirely, and just dump data in the root of the repository, then you
> probably don't need to limit your scope to a specific subtree of the
> repository; however, the existing usage of the subversion filesystem
> seems to work well for many people, and I don't think that labeled
> revisions will do away with it.
I don't think anyone is proposing to do away with tags and branches. The svn
copy is a powerful and useful feature. This is just an alternative way of
looking at project history. Of course if there is a way of making tag and
branch creation visible in the tree they were created from (ie. the trunk
says 'copied to ...' as well as the branch saying 'copied from ...'), that
would also
work.
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Sep 30 16:05:13 2004